Strata ordered to pay B.C. homeowner who had trouble with loud, smoking neighbours
A homeowner of a B.C. strata unit brought a legal fight against the corporation for failing to investigate his complaints and for failing to enforce certain bylaws that other homeowners allegedly violated.
The applicant, LL, co-owns a strata unit and filed a claim at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) for $12,000 in damages.
LL claimed other owners, particularly one referred to as DR, breached smoking and nuisance bylaws. In response, the strata told the tribunal that the other owners in question complied with the bylaws.
In March 2022, LL and his wife, SC, purchased unit SL27. DR lives in SL26. Around that time, the previous owners of a different unit, SL18, filed their own CRT dispute for failing to address DR’s unreasonable noise and smoking. SL18 is located directly beneath SL26.
In that dispute, the previous owners of SL18 were able to prove that DR created unreasonable noise, but there wasn’t enough supporting evidence. A different set of previous occupants of SL18 said they moved because of DR’s noise.
The tribunal dispute also involves the most recent owner of SL18, PD. LD, PD’s son, also lives in SL18.
LL said they started taking pictures and keeping logs to support a complaint, which led to “matters rapidly deteriorating” between LL and his wife on one side, and DR and PD on the other side.
According to the dispute decision, police attended on more than one occasion.
In July 2023, LL sent a letter to the strata with complaints about DR, PD and LD’s smoking. He also complained about DR’s noise and poor behaviour.
In August 2023, the strata council resigned, but it said that LL should’ve complained earlier.
LL continued to follow up with the new council, asking for a hearing. In February 2024, the strata responded that it felt the situation had been handled because police had attended and given warnings.
A hearing did take place in September 2024. According to council minutes, the strata said that neither LL nor SC provided evidence of nuisance or noise, just a video of an “antagonizing situation” between them, SL18 and SL26.
“The strata also noted it had obtained a legal opinion which was that as the disputes were about neighbours unwilling to get along, council should not involve itself. The strata decided fines would be useless and time consuming for strata,” the tribunal states.
Did the B.C. strata fail to enforce its bylaws?
LL’s primary argument was that the strata failed to enforce bylaws against DR and PD for causing a nuisance.
“The strata says that PD and DR are smoking on their back patios, as they are entitled to under the current bylaw 4.1. The strata also emphasizes that the patios are open air and the smoke dissipates,” the decision states.
The strata said that police handled the negative interactions between owners, but acknowledged that police did not address the smoking.
The strata said that PD and DR are “petite, older women who are not intimidating” and referred to LL and his wife as the “agitators.” The strata further claimed that SC’s constant filming amounted to “taunting” and “antagonizing.” The strata also said that the noise claims were a “cash grab.”
A complaint from the previous SL18 owner included objective evidence that DR made unreasonable noise.
“I find this should have alerted the strata to the potential nuisance DR created, but there is no evidence that the strata did anything about that risk,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal said that LL’s evidence showed that DR’s conduct was ongoing, including long periods of music, including after 10 p.m., which is audible from within SL27 and on SL27’s rear patio.
According to the strata, DR was not having “parties” and that DR was entitled to enjoy her home. Still, the tribunal found that by only giving DR a warning and not doing a deeper investigation meant that it treated LL significantly unfairly.
The tribunal further determined that the strata acted significantly unfairly by failing to investigate the combined effect of PD and DR’s smoking.
For this unfair treatment, the tribunal ordered the strata to pay the B.C. homeowner $2,612.50, which includes $2,500 in damages and $112.50 in tribunal fees. The tribunal also ordered the strata to investigate LL’s smoking complaints within 60 days of the decision and also ordered the strata to enforce its bylaws.
LL’s remaining claims were dismissed.